Page 343 - DMGT408DMGT203_Marketing Management

Marketing Management/Essentials of Marketing

Notes “Yes, Real Juice may pass the legal test fine, but ethically it won’t be correct,” said Ritu
Joshi. “Please understand. Here you are not making a claim,” said Amit Soni.
“You think so? Then look at this,” said Ritu Joshi, showing another campaign ad for Real
Juice that showed a fitness instructor of some repute, holding a Real Juice orange can and
his words were, ‘I trust Real Juice for my fitness and good health…’ “Now isn’t that a solid
claim on behalf of Real Juice,” asked Ritu.

“ It depends on whether the endorser is an expert,” said Amit Soni. “If he were a doctor, a
nutritionist, or a dietician then those words could connote a claim made by an expert and
could be contested. For instance, if a doctor says that Real Juice is best for health then the
question arises if the doctor has really conducted a test? Has he conducted the test in an
independent manner? Did he conduct the test to deliver a certain result? Did somebody
finance the test? That would amount to an unfair trade practice. If a complaint is lodged by
a consumer that the ad is misleading, the MRTP Commission could grant an injunction
that the ad be withdrawn.”
Rohit Jain was thinking loudly about another campaign praising canned drinks, claiming
that drinks in bottles faced a higher risk of contamination. The campaign was part of Real
Juice’s fitness and health positioning. Now he wondered if the manufacturers of bottled
drinks could contest that claim.
Amit Soni said, “Comparative advertising is healthy but the advertiser must be clear
about the claims to be made. In this case, you are saying that Real Juice is good because it
comes in cans and bottled drinks are not as good. This is a direct attack on bottled drinks.
Advertisers do not disclose all the parameters they have considered in their conclusion of
‘best’. They may select some major ones or may choose to highlight the trivial ones and
ignore the major ones. These things happen every day and are not strictly provided under
the law. There must be prima facie evidence of damage or misrepresentation to establish
a case of unfair trade practice.”
“So, we are legally safe,” said Rohit Jain. “We will reword this campaign, but our other
campaigns have passed the muster.”
Ritu Joshi felt differently. She said, “Legally we may be safe, but we have to also take an
ethical view.” The Real Juice commercial showed an ailing old man. The wife proceeds to
extract juice from some oranges, but the daughter-in-law sweeps everything aside and
pours out Real Juice from a can.
Ritu Joshi said, “You know, this ad says to me ‘Real Juice is convenient, Real juice is as
good as fresh oranges, Real juice is good for the ailing.’ That misleads.”

“Don’t be absurd,” said Rohit Jain, “The proposition here is convenience.”
“I am not being absurd,” said Ritu Joshi, “We must not forget that our primary platform is
health and fitness. This convenience angle is also creating an impression of ‘also good for
health’. I believe that as responsible advertisers, we have to be more concerned about the
ethical aspects than merely the legal angle. This is where we come to the line between what
is legal and what is ethical. We may be legally right but our act could be unethical if the
words or pictures in the ad could lead the consumer to believe something that is not true.
The aura of the fitness instructor used as the endorser creates an impression that the
information is coming to consumers from an environment where there are people whose
opinion consumers’ view as being correct. Otherwise why use the instructor as the endorser.”
Questions
1. Analyse the issues in the case.
2. What are your views about the ethical dilemma?
3. Why should advertisers bother about ethics if the ads measure up to legal parameters?
rd
Source: Advertising and Sales Promotion-3 Edition, SHH Kazmi and Satish K Batra, Excel Books.

336 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY